Proteome-Scale Human Interactomics

Trends in Biochemical Sciences

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 342-354

  Luck, Katja ^a,b   Sheynkman, Gloria M ^a,b   Zhang, Ivy ^a,b   Vidal, Marc ^a,b  

^a DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELL PROTEIN; PROTEOME; PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING;

ANALYTIC METHOD; BIOPHYSICS; CELL FUNCTION; CYTOLOGY; DATA ANALYSIS; DNA SEQUENCE; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN DETERMINATION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STABILITY; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; CHEMISTRY; METABOLISM; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEOMICS;

HUMANS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPS; PROTEINS; PROTEOME; PROTEOMICS;

EID: 85015637489     PISSN: 09680004     EISSN: 13624326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2017.02.006     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. 1 Vidal, M., et al. Interactome networks and human disease. Cell 144 (2011), 986–998.
2. 2 The ORFeome Collaboration, The ORFeome Collaboration: a genome-scale human ORF-clone resource. Nat. methods 13 (2016), 191–192.
3. 3 Hein, M.Y., et al. A human interactome in three quantitative dimensions organized by stoichiometries and abundances. Cell 163 (2015), 712–723.
4. 4 Huttlin, E.L., et al. The BioPlex network: a systematic exploration of the human interactome. Cell 162 (2015), 425–440.
5. 5 Rolland, T., et al. A proteome-scale map of the human interactome network. Cell 159 (2014), 1212–1226.
6. 6 Wan, C., et al. Panorama of ancient metazoan macromolecular complexes. Nature 525 (2015), 339–344.
7. 7 Dreze, M., et al. High-quality binary interactome mapping. Methods in enzymol. 470 (2010), 281–315.
8. 8 Vidal, M., Fields, S., The yeast two-hybrid assay: still finding connections after 25 years. Nat. methods 11 (2014), 1203–1206.
9. 9 Cassonnet, P., et al. Benchmarking a luciferase complementation assay for detecting protein complexes. Nat. methods 8 (2011), 990–992.
10. 10 Nyfeler, B., et al. Capturing protein interactions in the secretory pathway of living cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (2005), 6350–6355.
11. 11 Eyckerman, S., et al. Design and application of a cytokine-receptor-based interaction trap. Nat. cell biol. 3 (2001), 1114–1119.
12. 12 Hart, T., et al. High-resolution CRISPR screens reveal fitness genes and genotype-specific cancer liabilities. Cell 163 (2015), 1515–1526.
13. 13 Yu, H., et al. High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science 322 (2008), 104–110.
14. 14 Oliver, S., Guilt-by-association goes global. Nature 403 (2000), 601–603.
15. 15 Uetz, P., et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403 (2000), 623–627.
16. 16 Vo, T.V., et al. A proteome-wide fission yeast interactome reveals network evolution principles from yeasts to human. Cell 164 (2016), 310–323.
17. 17 Havugimana, P.C., et al. A census of human soluble protein complexes. Cell 150 (2012), 1068–1081.
18. 18 von Mering, C., et al. Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions. Nature 417 (2002), 399–403.
19. 19 Smits, A.H., Vermeulen, M., Characterizing protein–protein interactions using mass spectrometry: challenges and opportunities. Trends in biotechnol. 34 (2016), 834–835.
20. 20 Sowa, M.E., et al. Defining the human deubiquitinating enzyme interaction landscape. Cell 138 (2009), 389–403.
21. 21 Venkatesan, K., et al. An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping. Nat. methods 6 (2009), 83–90.
22. 22 Rual, J.F., et al. Human ORFeome version 1.1: a platform for reverse proteomics. Genome Res. 14 (2004), 2128–2135.
23. 23 Walhout, A.J., Vidal, M., A genetic strategy to eliminate self-activator baits prior to high-throughput yeast two-hybrid screens. Genome res. 9 (1999), 1128–1134.
24. 24 Mann, M., et al. The coming age of complete, accurate, and ubiquitous proteomes. Mol. cell 49 (2013), 583–590.
25. 25 Nesvizhskii, A.I., A survey of computational methods and error rate estimation procedures for peptide and protein identification in shotgun proteomics. J. of proteomics 73 (2010), 2092–2123.
26. 26 Nesvizhskii, A.I., Computational and informatics strategies for identification of specific protein interaction partners in affinity purification mass spectrometry experiments. Proteomics 12 (2012), 1639–1655.
27. 27 Smith, L.M., et al. Proteoform: a single term describing protein complexity. Nat. methods 10 (2013), 186–187.
28. 28 Boxem, M., et al. A protein domain-based interactome network for C. elegans early embryogenesis. Cell 134 (2008), 534–545.
29. 29 Orchard, S., et al. Protein interaction data curation: the International Molecular Exchange (IMEx) consortium. Nat. methods 9 (2012), 345–350.
30. 30 Braun, P., et al. An experimentally derived confidence score for binary protein–protein interactions. Nat. methods 6 (2009), 91–97.
31. 31 Chen, Y.C., et al. Exhaustive benchmarking of the yeast two-hybrid system. Nat. methods 7 (2010), 667–668 author reply 668.
32. 32 Caufield, J.H., et al. A comparison and optimization of yeast two-hybrid systems. Methods 58 (2012), 317–324.
33. 33 Cusick, M.E., et al. Literature-curated protein interaction datasets. Nat. methods 6 (2009), 39–46.
34. 34 D'Haeseleer, P., Church, G.M., Estimating and improving protein interaction error rates. Proc. IEEE Computat. Syst. Bioinform. Conf. 2004 (2004), 216–223.
35. 35 Hart, G.T., et al. How complete are current yeast and human protein-interaction networks?. Genome biol., 7, 2006, 120.
36. 36 Landry, C.R., et al. Extracting insight from noisy cellular networks. Cell 155 (2013), 983–989.
37. 37 Deane, C.M., et al. Protein interactions: two methods for assessment of the reliability of high throughput observations. Mol. cell. proteomics 1 (2002), 349–356.
38. 38 Levy, E.D., et al. How perfect can protein interactomes be?. Sci. signaling, 2, 2009, pe11.
39. 39 Sprinzak, E., et al. How reliable are experimental protein–protein interaction data?. J. Mol. Biol. 327 (2003), 919–923.
40. 40 Zarrinpar, A., et al. Optimization of specificity in a cellular protein interaction network by negative selection. Nature 426 (2003), 676–680.
41. 41 Zhong, Q., et al. An inter-species protein–protein interaction network across vast evolutionary distance. Mol. syst. biol., 12, 2016, 865.
42. 42 Ashburner, M., et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. genet. 25 (2000), 25–29.
43. 43 Stumpf, M.P., et al. Estimating the size of the human interactome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (2008), 6959–6964.
44. 44 Tompa, P., et al. A million peptide motifs for the molecular biologist. Mol. cell 55 (2014), 161–169.
45. 45 Shi, Y., et al. A strategy for dissecting the architectures of native macromolecular assemblies. Nat. methods 12 (2015), 1135–1138.
46. 46 Makowski, M.M., et al. Cross-linking immunoprecipitation-MS (xIP-MS): topological analysis of chromatin-associated protein complexes using single affinity purification. Mol. cell. proteomics 15 (2016), 854–865.
47. 47 Liu, F., et al. Proteome-wide profiling of protein assemblies by cross-linking mass spectrometry. Nat. methods 12 (2015), 1179–1184.
48. 48 Pankow, S., et al. F508 CFTR interactome remodelling promotes rescue of cystic fibrosis. Nature 528 (2015), 510–516.
49. 49 Ellis, J.D., et al. Tissue-specific alternative splicing remodels protein–protein interaction networks. Mol. Cell. 46 (2012), 884–892.
50. 50 Buljan, M., et al. Alternative splicing of intrinsically disordered regions and rewiring of protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Struc. Biol. 23 (2013), 443–450.
51. 51 Yang, X.P., et al. Widespread expansion of protein interaction capabilities by alternative splicing. Cell 164 (2016), 805–817.
52. 52 Sahni, N., et al. Widespread macromolecular interaction perturbations in human genetic disorders. Cell 161 (2015), 647–660.
53. 53 Grossmann, A., et al. Phospho-tyrosine dependent protein–protein interaction network. Mol. syst. biol., 11, 2015, 794.
54. 54 Woodsmith, J., Stelzl, U., Studying post-translational modifications with protein interaction networks. Curr. Opin. Struc. Biol 24 (2014), 34–44.
55. 55 Barrera, L.A., et al. Survey of variation in human transcription factors reveals prevalent DNA binding changes. Science 351 (2016), 1450–1454.
56. 56 Fuxman Bass, J.I., Human gene-centered transcription factor networks for enhancers and disease variants. Cell 161 (2015), 661–673.
57. 57 Stelzl, U., et al. A human protein–protein interaction network: a resource for annotating the proteome. Cell 122 (2005), 957–968.
58. 58 Rual, J.F., et al. Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein–protein interaction network. Nature 437 (2005), 1173–1178.
59. 59 Ewing, R.M., et al. Large-scale mapping of human protein–protein interactions by mass spectrometry. Mol. syst. biol., 3, 2007, 89.
60. 60 Kristensen, A.R., et al. A high-throughput approach for measuring temporal changes in the interactome. Nat. methods 9 (2012), 907–909.
61. 61 Lee, I., et al. Prioritizing candidate disease genes by network-based boosting of genome-wide association data. Genome res. 21 (2011), 1109–1121.
62. 62 Ruepp, A., et al. CORUM: the comprehensive resource of mammalian protein complexes – 2009. Nucleic acids res. 38 (2010), D497–501.
63. 63 Szklarczyk, D., et al. STRING v10: protein–protein interaction networks, integrated over the tree of life. Nucleic acids res. 43 (2015), D447–D452.
64. 64 Warde-Farley, D., et al. The GeneMANIA prediction server: biological network integration for gene prioritization and predicting gene function. Nucleic acids res. 38 (2010), W214–220.
65. 65 Ramachandran, N., et al. Next-generation high-density self-assembling functional protein arrays. Nat. methods 5 (2008), 535–538.